Space Blog

Is Pluto a Planet Again?

2014-10-03T02:06:00.000-07:00

Some stories just won't die without a fight and neither will some planets. Pluto was kicked out of the planet club in 2006 and is now known as a "dwarf planet" or "minor planet". An article today at stuff.co.nz makes it sound like there's a new movement of support for Pluto becoming a planet again, but in fact this is nothing new - astronomers have been arguing about it for many years and will continue to do so for many more.

One important point the article missed is that next year NASA's New Horizons will be the first spacecraft to fly past Pluto. It will be all over the news so 2015 is the year when Pluto supporters will probably make a big push to get public opinion on their side.

Whether Pluto does ever back its planet status is anybody's guess as it depends so much on the personal views of people in scientific-political positions. However it's very unlikely that anything will change in the foreseeable future, even with all the publicity coming next year. The wheels of change turn slowly at the International Astronomical Union and they aren't likely to want to reverse such a major decision less than 10 years after it was made.

So for now, and probably for a long time, we have 8 planets in our solar system.

The Moons of Pluto

2013-07-02T18:26:00.003-07:00

Today the International Astronomical Union (IAU) announced the official names for Pluto's two most recently discovered moons. The temporary names P4 and P5 have been replaced with Kerberos and Styx respectively.

These days the IAU doesn't get to make their decisions in isolation or without public pressure. People want to have their say and are quick to criticize unpopular decisions. And of course many Pluto fans are still getting over the whole demotion thing.

Last year there was a public vote for new names for Pluto's moons. By far the most popular was "Vulcan", supported by William Shatner.

Not for the first time, the IAU ignored public opinion and went with something different. Did the IAU get it right?

I think so. I'm a Trek fan and it's always fun to watch William Shatner get excited about anything, but in this case Vulcan would have been the wrong choice.

In the 19th century Vulcan was the name given to a hypothetcal planet inside Mercury's orbit. Although the planet turned out not to exist, the term "vulcanoid" is still associated with objects very close to the Sun (which does not include Pluto's moons).
In Star Trek lore Vulcan is a very large, hot planet, totally unlike Pluto's moons.
There is a long-standing convention of naming planets after Roman gods and moons after Greek gods. Vulcan is a Roman god so it would break the convention.
Astronomical names need to last a very long time. Will the Star Trek reference still be relevant even in 5000 years? I hope so but I wouldn't bet on it.
Kerberos and Styx are good, relevant names.

Both in astronomy and Star Trek, Vulcan is strongly associated with heat. It's not logical to name an icy moon Vulcan. Let's save the name Vulcan for a hot extrasolar planet orbiting close to its star. That would be a fitting tribute.

Vulcan's time will come, we just need to be patient.

My First Total Solar Eclipse

2012-11-25T02:33:00.001-08:00

Some time ago we decided to book a family holiday to see the November 2012 total solar eclipse in Port Douglas, Australia. It was a tricky venture to plan and I agonized over how to approach it. Where was the best place to be? How much effort should I make to photograph and/or video the event? Should I take my solar telescope and good camera, or travel lightly and be more mobile?

As it turned out, practical considerations ruled out taking all my best gear. That probably wasn't a bad thing though, because I had already decided to concentrate on enjoying the experience rather than recording it. I didn't want to be stressing about camera settings when I should be looking at the freaking TOTAL ECLIPSE.

So here's a rough video of how it unfolded. I plan to rework this video at a later date and add more about the whole experience, including the eclipse-chasing culture. But for now here's what a total eclipse felt like, the best I can explain it...

Attending my first star party

2012-02-12T00:39:00.000-08:00

This article was originally written for the Hamilton Astronomical Society monthly bulletin, February 2012.

This year I finally attended my first star party and, to my surprise, managed to convince my family to join me. The event was Stardate 2012, a weekend gathering of astronomers organized by the Phoenix Astronomical Society. It was held at a fully reserved camping ground near Hastings, on the 20th to 22nd January.

There were two accommodation options: Shared bunk rooms or tent spots. When booking, we only had a brief description and no photos so it was hard to imagine what the bunk rooms were like. We opted for a tent spot which was the right decision - the bunk rooms turned out to be unsuitable for families.

We arrived mid-afternoon on Friday and pitched our tent in a nice spot. Quickly meeting some of our neighbours was a good move, as they were veteran star partiers who helped us find our way around.

The opening ceremony was surprisingly short and left me with the vague feeling that I didn’t really have enough information. Oh well, people seemed very friendly and I was sure we’d be able to ask for help as needed.

The first presentation was an impressive showcase of images from the 2011 RASNZ astrophotography competition, hosted by well-known Gisborne astronomer John Drummond. This was also the session in which I learned just how uncomfortable a seat can be. As soon as the first talk was over I went back to the tent and grabbed a pillow to sit on. I never went to another talk without it.

After a tenuously relevant lecture about skin cancer, John Drummond was back with an interesting talk on elliptical and spiral galaxies.

Then came the reason we were all there - telescope viewing. This was held in the lower paddock, where everyone with a telescope sets up and invites everyone else to have a look.

4YO Floyd was asleep by this time, but 6YO Jessica was keen to go observing. Unfortunately the first six telescopes we visited were all pointed at M42! I guess that’s sort of understandable as people were getting themselves established, but perhaps a little coordination might have been a good idea. Although it was fun chatting to people along the way, after the sixth telescope Jessica was tired, a little disappointed (M42 is nothing new to her) and ready for bed.

Half an hour later I was back by myself and hoping for something more interesting. Sadly, this is where I got my biggest disappointment and made my biggest mistake.

The vibe had changed. Most of the “good” telescopes were surrounded by small groups of people huddled together and speaking in low voices. Feeling like a complete loner, I tried my best to insert myself into a couple of groups or even get a closer look to see what was going on. In the dark this wasn’t easy. I have no doubt that these were friendly people but they didn’t seem to be very mindful of newbies and I just couldn’t seem to get a look-in anywhere. Sure, I could have been more forceful and I would have been welcomed. But I was still finding my way and I didn’t feel comfortable with the situation.

So, less than two hours after lecturing my family about how important it is to seize every observing opportunity, I gave up and went to bed with the plan of finding a “buddy” to help me the next night. What was I thinking?

The next two nights were clouded out and there were no more observing sessions. Curse my idiocy.

Saturday morning featured the first of two sessions for children: "Constellations and Asterisms". Remarkably, this managed to hold my kids’ attention for almost ninety minutes. They’ve still got the handouts and pictures of asterisms they designed themselves.

At 12 noon we set off on the telescope trail, in which the owners of each telescope talked a bit about their gear. This was the highlight of the entire weekend for me, despite being way too hot in the midday Sun.

It occurred to me that a similar sort of trail would have been very useful the previous night. Instead of letting people try to find their own way around the viewing scopes, it would have been nice to have had a guide to help with introductions.

I attended about half the remaining Saturday presentations and was fairly satisfied with all of them. The best was the evening talk given by Ian Cooper and Stephen Chadwick who have co-written a book called “Imaging the Southern Skies”. The book is due out later this year and I’ll be buying a copy. I was stunned at the quality of Stephen’s photographs, and equally impressed by Ian’s knowledge. The only downside is that I’m pretty sure the talk included every single photo from the book (it was a long talk).

With no observing possible there was a movie on offer, but the thought of sitting on those bench seats a minute longer was too much. I went to bed.

Sunday morning included a rocket-launching session for all ages. It was gold, and I can’t thank George Moutzouris enough for providing the weekend highlights for my kids.

A buy-and-sell session over lunch was enjoyable and informative, although there wasn’t a huge amount of stuff for sale.

The remaining presentations were all reasonably rewarding but finished on an embarrassing note for us. Our kids really wanted to see the Mars presentation, and since they’re well-hardened to watching grown-up space talks I thought it would be okay. As it turned out, the talk was more advanced than we’d expected and involved a lot of technical text being read from the screen. Our kids became too fidgety and we had to walk out, at which time we discovered the world’s noisiest door. I assume the entire hall was glaring at us but we didn’t look back as we slunk away.

On a more positive note, I went for a walk at 2 a.m. and was surprised to find a clear sky. Three other people were about, so one of them brought out his 8" dob and we did a bit of observing.

All in all, despite a few missteps I count our first Stardate as a success. The biggest surprise was my family’s response—I had been nervous about how bored they would get but I needn’t have worried. They’ve suggested that we all go back next year, and we probably will.

Tips learnt from my first Stardate:

Arrive by lunch time on Friday if you want a good tent spot.
Ask for help and guidance. You don’t get a lot from the organizers but that’s okay once you realize it’s more a case of everyone helping everyone else. Don’t make my mistake and be too shy.
Take a cushion for the talks. Before attending a talk, try to ascertain the technical level (they vary greatly).
The kitchen closes without warning on Monday morning. Retrieve all your food and other belongings before then.
Treat your first star party as a learning experience.

If you’re interested in going to next year’s Stardate, feel free to contact me and I’ll be your "buddy".

Breaking the speed of light

2011-09-29T03:04:00.000-07:00

This article was written for the Hamilton Astronomical Society monthly bulletin, October 2011.

Unless you live in a cave on Titan you’ll already be aware of the biggest news in science this month - the apparent violation of Einstein’s speed of light limit. As is so often the case with breaking science news, the media coverage is variable in its quality and accuracy. Here’s a quick, simplified overview of the story...

What exactly is the claim?

Scientists working on an experiment in Italy have noticed that sub-atomic particles called neutrinos appear to travel faster than the speed of light. According to Einstein’s special theory of relativity, this is impossible.

The experiment is called Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus (OPERA). It involved two physics laboratories separated by 730 km: The CERN laboratory in Switzerland and the LNGS laboratory in Italy.

The CERN lab generated neutrinos which travelled through the Earth’s crust to the LNGS lab (there is no physical tunnel, the particles travelled straight through the Earth). Very precise measurements were made of the distance and time taken, and the results showed the neutrinos arriving 60 nanoseconds earlier than they should if they were travelling at the speed of light.

It’s very important to note that the researchers are not claiming to have “broken the speed limit of light” or “disproved Einstein’s theories”. Despite many headlines in mainstream media, the researchers are not claiming proof of anything, they are opening up their research in the hope that other scientists will be able to help solve the mystery.

What are neutrinos?

Fundamental particles, electrically neutral, with negligible mass. They rarely interact with "normal" matter, so they pass through most things without any effect and are therefore difficult to detect. They are produced in nuclear reactions such as the fusion inside our Sun. They are very common - billions are passing through your body right now.

Why do we think the speed of light can’t be broken?

In Einstein’s famous and spectacularly successful equation E=mc², "c" is the speed of light in a vacuum and it’s a constant. It never changes. Any object with mass is constrained to this limit.

It’s not just that we’ve never been able to find anything that breaks this speed limit. According to the well-tested maths as well as physical experiments, this limit is an inescapable property of the universe. For example, as you approach the speed of the light the energy required to increase your velocity increases dramatically and would become infinite at the speed of light.

Has anything like this happened before?

Yes, superluminal (faster than light) speed has been reported in some previous experiments. For example, a 2007 experiment in Minnesota USA called the Main Injector Neutrino Oscillation Search (MINOS) noticed the same effect but their measurements weren’t accurate enough to give any confidence.

The OPERA experiment is the first time such a high degree of confidence has been reported.

On the other hand, many more previous experiments and observations show neutrinos behaving exactly as Einstein’s laws dictate. For example, when supernova 1987a was observed, neutrinos created in the blast arrived at Earth as expected - within hours of the visible light. If they had travelled at the superluminal speeds claimed by OPERA they would have arrived several years earlier.

How reliable are the observations?

The effect has been measured over 15,000 times. The margin of error in distance measurement is 20 cm. The margin of error in time measurement is 10 nanoseconds. The researchers give the result a statistical significance of six-sigma, which basically means it’s a statistical certainty.

How significant is this claim?

It’s huge. The fact that you own a computer is down to our understanding of Einstein’s theories. A century of scientific research has held up the idea that superluminal speed is impossible for objects with mass.

Claiming to have broken the superluminal speed limit is almost like claiming to have broken the law of gravity. Imagine if someone claimed to have seen objects falling up instead of down - would you believe them or would you be looking for some other explanation?

You can see why other scientists are skeptical. It would be a brave person to accept the new results without a lot more investigation.

What are the possible explanations?

There could be some form of systematic error in the OPERA experiment, for example, the distance may not have been measured correctly. Although no-one has yet been able to spot any such errors, this is still considered the most likely explanation.

Einstein could be wrong, or at least not completely right. Perhaps his theories need tweaking. This is widely considered to be unlikely.

In some theoretical models such as string theory, the universe consists of more dimensions than the four we’re familiar with (3 space + 1 time). Neutrinos could be slipping in and out of these extra dimensions, creating shortcuts in space-time. In this scenario the speed of light would be maintained but the distance covered would be reduced, giving the illusion of superluminal speed.

There are many other possibilities being discussed with varying levels of support, from the speed of light needing another correction to photons having mass.

What would the implications be if it’s true?

Sadly superluminal neutrinos will not lead directly to spaceships with warp drive. It’s hard to imagine what the real implications would be, but we do know that it would rock the scientific world and we’d need to completely re-examine our understanding of the laws of physics. Now what?

Other scientists need to examine the paper and look for possible errors. At the same time other laboratories will attempt to replicate the result. This could take up to two years. We’ll all need some patience.

Read the paper at static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf

The Square Kilometre Array

2011-09-27T14:52:00.000-07:00

This article was written for the Hamilton Astronomical Society monthly bulletin, April 2011.

The Square Kilometre Array (SKA) is a proposed radio telescope project that has significant implications for astronomers around the world. It also has special significance for us in New Zealand because there’s a good chance our country will be an important partner in the project.

The SKA will consist of over 3,000 separate radio antennas, all linked together to effectively form a single radio telescope. The total collection surface from all antennas will be approximately 1 km2, hence the name “Square Kilometre Array”.

However the geographical size of the telescope is much larger. The main “core” group of antennas will be 5 km wide, with smaller groups extending out in a spiral pattern over a vast area. The farthest antennas will be over 3,000 km from the core, giving an exceptionally wide baseline and field of view.

Where will it be?

The SKA project is run by an international consortium with representatives from more than 15 countries. The project office is located in Manchester, UK. The project was proposed more than 10 years ago and is now reaching the final design stages. New Zealand is a relative latecomer to the project, having joined with Australia a few years ago to present a joint bid to construct the telescope. If our bid is successful, the core and most antennas will be located in Western Australia. New Zealand will likely become home to a small number of antennas.

There are currently two construction bids being considered — the other being in Southern Africa (spread across several countries). The African bid may have the advantage of lower construction cost but the Australasian bid appears to have the stronger scientific case. In particular, the Australian location offers the lowest level of unwanted radio noise.

It’s too early be confident, but several sources I’ve spoken to say the smart money is on the Australasian bid.

What will it do?

The SKA will be the largest radio telescope ever built, and one of the largest scientific projects ever undertaken. The scale is enormous, as is the budget — around $NZ3.1 billion.

The scientific goals are equally lofty. Astronomers plan to map the large-scale structure of the universe and answer questions about the nature of dark energy, gravity waves, the formation of early galaxies, pulsars, cosmic magnetism and more. The data will also be useful in the search for extra terrestrial life — as well as being able to detect carbon in distant solar systems, the telescope will offer the best chance so far of finding artificially-generated radio signals from alien worlds.

The SKA will be 50 times more sensitive and 10,000 times faster than any other radio telescope. Phenomenal amounts of data will be involved. Each individual dish will send 420 Gb per second, totalling 16 Tb/sec per aperture array. This will require significant innovation and new technologies in data storage, networking and software development.

To put the data flow in perspective, it is estimated that the world currently generates around 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes of new digital information per year. The SKA will equal this in one day.

How will it work?

The images on these pages are artist impressions of the proposed arrays in Australia. In the inner core (below), antennas are distributed randomly in a circle 5 km wide.

Moving out from the core, stations containing smaller groups of antennas are located at intervals stretching out to several hundred kilometres. Even farther out, remote stations are located at increasing distances across the continent and, hopefully, New Zealand. The telescope will observe a very wide frequency range, from 70 MHz to 30 GHz. Because this range cannot be observed with a single antenna design, there will be three different types of antenna used:

SKA-Low Array: These simple dipole antennas cover the frequency range from 70 - 200 MHz. They will be grouped in stations 100 m wide, each containing about 90 antennas.
SKA-Mid Array: These will probably be arrays of 3 m2 tiles covering the mid-frequency range from 200 - 500 MHz. They will be housed in circular stations 60 m in diameter.
Dish Array: Covering the frequency range 500 MHz - 10 GHz, these arrays will be the familiar dish design. They will probably be similar to the Allen Telescope Array, using an offset Gregorian design. The size will be around 15 m high and 12 m wide.

Above: Artist’s impression of the 5km diameter central core of SKA antennas.
Image credit: SKA Project Development Office and Swinburne Astronomy Productions

When will it happen?

The successful bid is due to be announced early in 2012. If all goes to plan, detailed design and engineering requirements will be finalised by 2015, construction will begin in 2016 and be complete by 2023.

Thanks to its modular design, the telescope can become operational before construction is complete. The first science results should be returned by 2019.

The telescope is planned to be complete and fully operational in 2024, and have a life expectancy of between 50 and 100 years.

Who pays for it?

Participating governments will share much of the cost, but an important goal is to secure investment from the private sector. Many new technologies will need to be developed and private enterprise is seen as the best option. In a nice win-win scenario, companies that develop intellectual property for the project will also retain the IP rights, as well as other benefits.

What will it mean for New Zealand?

There will be many opportunities for local industry. The project will require a large investment and New Zealand is well-placed to deliver. There will also be benefits for the wider community, such as improvements in national network infrastructures. Of course those of us interested in astronomy will be most excited about the potential for scientific discovery, and the fact that New Zealand can contribute to such an important endeavour.

One year from now we should know the outcome. Good luck to us!

Above: SKA-Low Array

Above: SKA-Mid Array Station

Above: Dish Array (Offset Gregorian Antenna)

More info: www.skatelescope.org, www.ska.ac.nz

A New Planet in Our Solar System?

2011-03-07T17:34:00.000-08:00

The apparent discovery of a new planet in our own solar system has been generating a lot of media buzz recently. Beginning with an article in the Independent, many media outlets have followed with bold claims about the announcement. CNN.com even ran it as their lead story.

However, whilst the existence of this object is plausible, it's not yet time for another planetary recount.

The hypothetical planet, dubbed "Tyche", was proposed by astrophysicists John Matese and Daniel Whitmire from the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. Their paper was published in the November 2010 edition of the scientific journal Icarus.

They believe the object to be either a very large gas giant or a brown dwarf star. They describe it as more of a companion to the Sun than a typical planet, orbiting far out in the (also hypothetical) Oort cloud.

Their hypothesis is based on observations of comet orbits. The duo point to a statistical bias in the origins of comets from the Oort cloud, claiming that comets do not appear randomly from the cloud but rather in a pattern that could be explained by the presence of a large planet.

Their claim is not new, in fact they first proposed this scenario back in 1999. Their latest paper builds on the original hypothesis with the assertion that statistical evidence is growing.

"What's new is that this pattern has persisted," said Matese. "It's possible that it's a statistical fluke, but that likelihood has lessened as more data has accumulated in the past 10 years."

Other astronomers are less convinced. Space.com spoke to planetary scientist Matthew Holman from the Harvard Smithsonian Institute of Astrophysics, who said: "Based on past papers that I've seen looking at where long-period comets came from in the sky, and finding signatures of large perturbers of the Oort cloud, I was not persuaded by the evidence."

Hal Levison, planetary scientist at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado, agreed: "What Matese claims is that he sees an excess of comets coming from a particular place, which he attributes to the gravitational effects of a large planet in the Oort cloud. I have nothing against the idea, but I think the signal that he claims he sees is very subtle, and I'm not sure it's statistically significant."

The next obvious step is to try and locate Tyche with a telescope. Unfortunately it would be too dim for a visible light telescope to see, but it would probably be detectable in infrared wavelengths. For this reason Matese and Whitmire are hoping for support from NASA's infrared space telescope WISE, which they believe will confirm Tyche's existence and location within two years.

According to Whitney Clavin of JPL, "It is likely but not a foregone conclusion that WISE could confirm whether or not Tyche exists. Since WISE surveyed the whole sky once, then covered the entire sky again in two of its infrared bands six months later, WISE would see a change in the apparent position of a large planet body in the Oort cloud over the six-month period."

Another possible method of detection, suggested by an audience member at a recent HAS public night, would be to look for a corresponding wobble in the Sun's position (known as the astrometric technique of planet detection). However Tyche's proposed orbital period is approximately 27 million years, ruling out this method for now. As an aside, Matese and Whitmire claim the 27 million year orbit could explain mass extinctions on Earth.

Whatever the eventual outcome, this story serves as a reminder that new scientific "discoveries" announced in mainstream media should always be taken with a grain of salt.

NASA Fan Video

2011-01-11T01:42:00.000-08:00

Like me, YouTube user damewse thinks NASA's PR department lacks relevancy. Unlike me, he decided to help them out with this fan-made video. The copyright status seems a little questionable (especially the Carl Sagan voiceover) but it's a beauty anyway...

Bad Universe

2010-07-23T05:51:00.000-07:00

Phil Plait, AKA The Bad Astronomer, is a legendary advocate for sense and reason. Today he's announced a new series coming to Discovery Channel called Bad Universe. This looks absolutely amazing.

Partial Lunar Eclipse Tomorrow

2010-06-24T20:20:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow (Saturday June 26th) at around 10:30pm, make sure you get outside to see if the Moon is visible. The weather forecast isn't promising but if you can see it, the Moon will be in partial lunar eclipse until around 12:30am. The best view will be around 11:30 - 11:50pm.

What will it look like?
Lunar eclipses only happen at full moon, so that's what you'll see first. Soon after 10:30pm you'll see a darkening and reddening in the bottom left area of the Moon. Over the next hour this spreads until about half the Moon's surface will hopefully look a really spooky red colour. By 1:00am it will have returned to normal.

Simulation using free Stellarium software

What's happening?
The Moon is passing through the edge of the Earth's shadow, which is what makes half the Moon go dark. The interesting effect is the redness - that's caused by sunlight passing through and being refracted by the Earth's atmosphere. Blue light tends to scatter in our atmosphere, leaving the red wavelengths of light to continue towards the Moon.

This is the same effect that gives us a blue sky (from scattered sunlight) and red sunsets (from light travelling through more atmosphere, losing its blue light and leaving the red).

The first image below shows how our atmosphere splits up sunlight like a prism, and how the Moon becomes red as it goes through the eclipse. The second image shows an imaginary view from the Moon, with the Sun hidden behind Earth.

Image credit: Adapted by Dave Owen from public domain files at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_eclipse

Constellation Launch Abort System

2010-05-07T19:16:00.000-07:00

It sure would be nice to salvage something from the Constellation program. Although on balance I think the decision to cancel the program was the most pragmatic option, I hate waste as much as anyone. Hopefully the new launch abort system might be one development that can be used by someone.... or am I clutching at straws? Is this test just a complete waste of time and money?

Apollo 11 Launch Slo-Motion

2010-04-29T03:32:00.000-07:00

Here's an amazing and unusual view from the launchpad of Apollo 11, July 1969. Shot at 500 frames per second and then slowed down, the result shows 30 seconds of action spread over 8 minutes. Boring? No. Check it out...

Apollo 11 Saturn V Launch (HD) Camera E-8 from Mark Gray on Vimeo.

Discovery Launch Video

2010-04-06T22:11:00.000-07:00

Check out this stunning video of Discovery launching on Monday. The plumes are illuminated by the pre-dawn Sun.

NASA TV is Boring

2009-12-27T14:31:00.000-08:00

David Ferrell has written an article for the LA Times criticizing NASA TV for being too boring. It's an interesting criticism and one that I have often thought about making in this blog. Although I've previously gushed about how NASA TV can be reality TV at its best, it's true that it can also be as watchable as a monochrome test pattern.

There are several problems.

People are used to high-voltage reality TV with pacey action. Extended shots of mission controllers monitoring their stations doesn't cut it.
The reality of space exploration isn't like science fiction. It does involves lots of nothing.
NASA TV's annual budget of around $1.5 million just isn't enough to create compelling TV 24/7.

There's inevitably some debate over whether the solution is to lift the excitement factor or to encourage viewers to appreciate space exploration for what it really is. I think a compromise is required. I'd hate to see NASA TV become a clone of mainstream programming but I'm also a pragmatist. The only time I can convince anyone to watch NASA TV is when there's a launch or EVA (spacewalk). Even then I have to provide my own commentary to counter the terminally dull science-speak interspersed with looong segments of silence.

I often daydream about what I'd do with NASA TV if I was in charge. Given a budget I'd start by sorting out a lot of simple technical issues, for example, making sure that Q&A sessions included audio of both the question and the answer(!). There are plenty of improvements that could be made easily but I'm sure the whole situation is more difficult than it seems. I don't envy them having to work with such high expectations and such a limited budget.

For now another option is to look at various re-broadcasts. Like most NASA media, NASA TV is copyright-free and able to be re-packaged by other content providers. SpaceflightNow.com has a channel on Youtube and a live stream on LiveStream.com. I encourage users to check these out and Google for other channels. I also encourage content providers to look seriously at using NASA material for programming. It's cheap to acquire and with a little work it can satisfy the huge demand for exciting live TV.

Moon Hoax Theory put to rest?

2009-12-02T19:37:00.000-08:00

One of our national news websites today rather optimistcally reported:

NASA has put to bed conspiracy theories that humans never landed on the moon with the release of the first high resolution images of the lunar surface showing the lander and flags left by astronauts in the 1970s.

The images (below) are great and they are indeed solid evidence that the Moon landings happened. However this isn't new - various images have previously provided similar evidence, and of course NASA has a large body of other convincing evidence that can only be explained by real live Moon landings. The sad fact is that none of this will ever put the hoax theory "to bed". People who promote the theory are too heavily invested in it, and followers suffer from True Believer Syndrome which prevents them from ever accepting any proof.

By tomorrow hoax believers will be claiming the latest photos are all part of the conspiracy.

Eventually humans will land back on the Moon, and eventually the original landing sites will be revisted and preserved as historical sites. Hoax believers will continue to say it's all a cover-up.

This is an argument that will never end.

Rocket Lab NZ

2009-11-29T19:07:00.000-08:00

Congratulations to Rocket Lab for launching New Zealand's first locally-designed space rocket. I hope it's the start of great things.

My single criticism would be to pay more attention to your Twitter feed. It's not a good look to promise live updates and then leave all your subscribers wondering what happened.

Horava Theory

2009-11-24T19:22:00.000-08:00

Those of you with any interest in astrophysics will be acquainted with the quantum mechanics/general relativity problem. It basically means that Einstein's theories and quantum mechanics don't fit with each other. In other words, while both sets of theories seem to make sense on their own, when you put them together there's a problem. This is sometimes referred to as the search for the "Theory of Everything", i.e. the theory that ties all the other theories together. Personally I hate the term "Theory of Everything" but that's another story.

Petr Hořava, a physicist at the University of California, thinks he may have the answer. Of course so do lots of physicists and even more armchair scientists, but sadly few of their theories have any merit. That's why the scientific community is wary of radical new theories. It's also why I took a bit more notice of Hořava - he announced his theory back in January (2009) and instead of being steadily debunked like most of them, his theory seems to be gaining traction. That's rare.

In essence he's proposing that at very high energies, time and space become separate instead of being part of the same fabric (as stated by Einstein). The details can be found at scientificamerican.com.

But perhaps my favourite part of the theory is that is offers alternate explanations for dark energy and dark matter. I've never liked them and I feel they stink of the fudge-factor. I know that actual scientists (as opposed to the amateur armchair variety such as myself) feel quite comfortable with dark energy and matter, but I want to go on record now as predicting their demise. In my opinion some other explanation will emerge that removes any need for these fudges. Maybe it will be Hořava's, maybe not, but whatever it is I look forward to it.

Galileo's Finger

2009-11-23T13:18:00.000-08:00

I'm afraid this is something that I wouldn't want in my collection despite its value and historical significance. Two fingers and a tooth that were removed from Galileo's body nearly 300 years ago and went missing about 100 years ago have recently resurfaced. They were purchased at auction by an astute buyer who recognized them and brought them to the Museum of the History of Science in Florence.

Removing body parts from saints and other revered people was common practice in Europe hundreds of years ago. These items were thought to have special significance and sacred power. It's ironic that Galileo should be treated this way, given his history with the Catholic Church who declared him a heretic and sentenced him to life-long house arrest.

In this day and age I think it's time to put an end to displaying body parts like this. Although I'm a rationalist I find it unsettling and somewhat disrespectful. I like to think that Galileo is giving us one last gesture telling us what he thinks of it too...

Meteor Over Utah

2009-11-18T21:28:00.000-08:00

Some great footage of a meteor lighting up the night sky over western states of the USA: www.fox13now.com/...meteor

Tinkle Tinkle Little Star

2009-09-14T16:25:00.000-07:00

Stargazers in the USA have been wondering about a mysterious sparkling light seen overhead last Wednesday. A number of people who follow the Space Shuttle correctly surmised that it was something being dumped overboard.

The messy truth is that it was an unusually large urine dump - about 68kg. Since the installation of the Kibo module on the ISS, the Space Shuttle hasn't been able to dump liquid waste while docked. This means that 10 days worth of waste has to be stored and dumped at once after undocking.

According to astronauts, space ablution is one of the most commonly-requested topics of discussion. I have a display in my own collection entitled "How do you go to the toilet in space?" and it gets more comments than anything else. A friend of mine, upon learning that shooting stars are sometimes human waste, said "You've ruined the romance".

So this one's for you Colin. Just in case your imagination isn't enough, a photo courtesy of spaceweather.com to seal the deal. The lower streak is the Space Shuttle, the comet-like object is 68kg of romance-killing pee.

NASA Budget ≠ NASA Ambitions

2009-09-08T20:56:00.000-07:00

It's the worst-kept secret in space: NASA doesn't have enough money to do what it's doing. A much-anticipated report from the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee, given to the White House today, begins ominously:

"The US human spaceflight program appears to be on an unsustainable trajectory. [NASA] is perpetuating the perilous practice of pursuing goals that do not match allocated resources."

Where this all ends up is anyone's guess. NASA has already spent nearly $8 billion (of a planned $40 billion) to return to the Moon. The Constellation project seems to be going reasonably well despite strong criticism, but where exactly is it going?

I'm finding my hopes are resting more and more in private space enterprise, where decision-makers are personally accountable and the goalposts aren't shifted every time there's a new administration.

Would you book a one-way ticket to Mars?

2009-09-02T16:48:00.000-07:00

As the practical and financial problems associated with NASA's proposed manned Mars mission become ever clearer, one scientist has made an interesting suggestion: Remove the return trip. According to Lawrence M. Krauss of Arizona State University, plenty of astronauts would be willing to live out their remaining years doing work on the red planet.

I concur - I don't think there would be any problem finding volunteers. If it wasn't for the fact that I have a family on Earth who is less enthusiastic about the idea than I am, I'd be a starter myself. What a way to go down in history!

Krauss points out some historical precedents, saying "Colonists and pilgrims seldom set off for the New World with the expectation of a return trip, usually because the places they were leaving were pretty intolerable anyway. Give us a century or two and we may turn the whole planet into a place from which many people might be happy to depart."

Planetary Collision Detected

2009-08-12T16:24:00.000-07:00

NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope has uncovered evidence of two planets (or similar-sized celestial bodies) colliding in the recent past, i.e. within the last few thousand years. Spitzer sees infrared light and so was able to detect the signatures of molten rock and debris from the collision. The two planets appear to be smaller than Earth, about the size of our moon and Mercury. I'm a big fan of CGI animations showing physically accurate mayhem in space so I quite like this video that depicts the collision. The animation is somewhat slower than real-time but probably not a great deal - it's pretty close to how you'd see it from a spaceship. Notice how the outer layer of the larger planet is blasted away and the smaller body merges with the larger one, creating a new hot planet.

It's thought that at least two similar collisions happened in the early days of our solar system. One collision stripped Mercury of its mantle, and another collision created a ring of debris around the Earth which eventually became our Moon.

Send a Message to ET

2009-08-11T16:30:00.000-07:00

From today until August 24th 2009, you can send a message (up to 160 characters) to the nearest known Earth-like planet outside our own solar system. Gliese 581 d is a potentially habitable planet in the "goldilocks zone" (not too hot, not too cold) about 20 light years from Earth. Naturally this means that any reply will be at least 40 years away but that's a very short time compared to most interstellar conversations. To participate visit www.hellofromearth.net.

Space Underpants

2009-08-01T02:29:00.000-07:00

The list of commercial spin-offs from spaceflight is set to include a new development in advanced underpants. As reported by various media over the past few months, Japanese astronaut Koichi Wakata has been trying out new space-undies that kill bacteria, eliminate odour, absorb water, insulate the body and dry quickly. Like any good action undergarment they are anti-static and flame-resistant, but now you can enjoy these safety benefits for a full week without the inconvenience of changing underwear. Best of all they won't freak out your girlfriend - according to the pics they're stylish enough for the most sophisticated space cadet.

It's interesting which space news items get picked up by mainstream media. Missions come and go with barely a mention, but if you invent some futuristic underpants you'll make the front page. Although I find this a little frustrating at times, I don't mind too much because it does generate interest and provides some much-needed lightheartedness in space-related news. And I suppose the ever-worrying issue of smelly undies is something the public can relate to.

Anyway I'm still wondering... assuming these things do make it to shop shelves, who exactly will be the target market?